Maybe, but kannel has never been a wap 2.0 gateway. Only a 1.x. Besides there are still wap 1.x phones around that use wtls even today.
Nikos ----- Original Message ----- From: Andreas Fink To: Nikos Balkanas Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 7:09 PM Subject: Re: Patch: wtls provision WSP and WTP are supported in Kannel WTLS is a dead end. Its only used in WAP 1.1 while the world uses WAP 2.0 these days. Today's phones don't support WTLS anymore neither, it doesn't give real security as the operator can still wiretap to what the user does. On 14.03.2010, at 17:46, Nikos Balkanas wrote: Hi, It's been 4 months now that I made a no small contribution to provide wtls functionality to kannel. I have not received any feedback (positive or negative) and apparently there is no interest in it. It is a pitty, since apart from the development effort, there was also significant time spent to port everything to kannel style and sources. I was misled to believe that this would be worthwhile. Frankly, I cannot understand how kannel could ever claim to be a wap gateway, without supporting one of the 3 major protocols (WSP, WTP & WTLS). It is therefore with regret that I retract this contribution. Since it was never accepted by kannel, the original commercial rights remain in effect (InAccess Networks and myself) and no part of the patch offered can be used in part or as a whole without the expressed permission of the authors. Regretfully, Nikos Balkanas ----- Original Message ----- From: Nikos Balkanas To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 4:56 PM Subject: Patch: wtls provision Dear friends, This is a long overdue contribution to kannel's wap. It will provide wtls functionality. It has been thoroughly tested in Solaris, and compiles cleanly in Linux. I used indent to format the structure, so a lot of the differences will be formatting. Nevertheless, there is a lot of code in there that needed to make it work. Let me know if the cvs diff is the best way to submit it, or whether a tarball of the sources would be better. I've have had some issues with cvs diff in the past, so if you get any compilation warnings, I may have to go with a tarball. In particular it will provide: A) Supported MACs: SHA_0, SHA_40, SHA_80, SHA_NOLIMIT, MD5_40, MD5_80, MD5_NOLIMIT MIA's: SHA_XOR_40 B) Supported Ciphers: RC5_CBC_40, RC5_CBC_56, RC5_CBC, DES_CBC, DES_CBC_40 MIA's: NULL_bulk, TRIPLE_DES_CBC_EDE, IDEA_CBC_40, IDEA_CBC_56, IDEA_CBC C) Supported Keys: RSA_anon MIA's: RSA_anon_512, RSA_anon_768, RSA_NOLIMIT, RSA_512, RSA_768, ECDH_anon, ECDH_anon_113, ECDH_anon_131, ECDH_ECDSA_NOLIMIT Keys might seem a shortcoming, but I have yet to see a mobile that doesn't support RSA_anon. I do expect that a few of the rest of the keys are supported as well (i.e. RSA_anon_512, RSA_anon_768) just didn't have the chance to test them. Please vote and decide, Nikos
